‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1365) AND THE MAMLUK SOURCES [REASSESSMENT OF THE KTDiB AL-ILMAM OF AN-NUWAYRI AL-ISKANDARANI @.aD.1372) Jo VAN STEENBERGEN" ‘The crusade that Peter I of Lusignan, King of Cyprus and Jerusalem from 1358 until 1369,' embarked upon in October 1365 has already aroused a considerable number of scholarly controversies. In recent times, the works of Aziz S. Atiya? and Peter W. Edbury? in particular ‘were very notable in this respect. Nevertheless, several issues still remain open for research and consideration — or reconsideration —, particularly conceming the Muslim historiography on the event. One of these issues, I believe, is that of the appreciation of the most elaborate Muslim reproduction in the encyclopaedia of the eyewitness an-Nuwayri al-Iskandardnt of the conquest and sack of Alexandria in 1365. This description of the last convulsions of the Crusades in Egypt was regarded by such an authority as A.S. Atiya as “the most valuable sourrce material on the Crusade of Alexandria from the Egyptian point of view" Its the intention of this paper to show that this is a dangerous assumption and that, though an-Nuwayr’s contribution is indeed very valuable, it sill requires a very eritical approach. King Peter I prepared his crusade against the Mamliks of Egypt very thoroughly, travelling around in Europe from 1362 until 1365 and seek- ing financial and practical support at the illustrious European courts of his time.S He finally gathered with his allies atthe island of Rhodes in August 1365® and the entire fleet set sail on the 4th of October. Only “For the abbreviations wsed in the footnotes see the end ofthis ate, * See HD. Purell, Cyprus (New York and Washington, 196), p. 133. 2» AS. Atya, “The Crusade in the Fourteenth Century”, in A History ofthe Crusades, ed. KM. Seton, , The Fourteenth and Fifienth Centuries, ed. H.W. Hazard (Madison Wise. 1975), pp. 3:26 5 Babury, Kingdom of Cyprus; idem, “Crusading Policy”, pp 90-105. « Atiya, A Fourteenth Century Eneyelopedit pp. 18, 38, 5 Babury, Kingdom of Cypras, p. 161; idem, “Crisaing Policy", pp. 92-3: Atiya, “Crusade” (Ge m2) pp. 145 'Ebury, Kingdom of Cyprus, . 166124 J. VAN STEENBERGEN then, did Peter make known to his companions that their goal was an attack on Alexandria.” As was persuasively suggested by Peter Edbury, this:expedition had little or nothing to do with Christian motives of recovery of the Holy Land. On the contrary, its motives seem to have been purely commer- cial. The changing trade routes and the economic effects of the Black Death threatened Cyprus’ commercial position, while the economic ele- ‘ment at the same time favoured the Mamlk Empire in Egypt and in par- ticular its most important Mediterranean port, Alexandria,* According to Edbury, Peter 1 “hoped to achieve one of two things: to capture and hold the city so tha in future he and his kingdom would derive profit from its eommerce, or if. permanent occupation was not feasible, to destroy Alexandria in the naive ‘expectation that its commercial wealth would revert to Famagusta."? ‘What do MamlOk sources tell us about the ensuing attack on and sack of their Mediterranean port al-Iskandarlyya, and what is the value of their accounts? After careful study, I ended up with five major historiograph- ieal sources that provide ample details. However, a comparison of their accounts made clear that only three versions of this event actually sur- vvived in Muslim historiography. These versions and their sources will be presented and analysed here and in the light of this analysis, the version that was traditionally considered the most authoritative Muslim account of the Cypriote conquest and sack of Alexandria in 1365 — ie. that in the encyclopaedia of the eyewitness an-Nuwayrl al-Iskandarint — will be reconsidered.!” As Atiya informs us in his study A Fourteenth Century Encyclopedist, ‘Muhammad b. Qasim b. Muhammad an-Nuwayrt al-Iskandarini lived in fourteenth-century Alexandria as a copyist of manuscripts for the rich ‘Muslim merchants of that city, a profession which made him very famil- iar with the classical Arabic literature." He died in Alexandria in A.D. * Bid, p. 167 * Ibid, pp. 152-3; Edbury, “Crusading Policy”, pp. 95-7; R. lrwin, The Middle East in the Midale Ages: The Early Mamlik Sultanate, 1250-1382 (London, 1986), p. dS " Eabury, “Cruseding Policy”, p. 97. " Aiya, A Fourteenth Century Encyclopedis, pp. 18, 38. Se also M. Maller-Wiener, Eine Stadigeschichte Alexandrias von 354!1169 bs in die Mite des 915, Jahrhunderts Verwaltung und innerstidischen Organisaionsformen,Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 159 (Berlin, 1992), p. 46, where an-Nuwayr a-lskandardnt is used as the sole authority to describe the attack and sack of Alexandia in 1365, Aliya, A Poureenth Century Eneyelopedist, pp. 11-2‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1365) AND THE MAMLOK SOURCES 125 1372, so he definitely was an eyewitness and contemporary of Peter's sack of his city. It was after this event that he decided to write down what he hhad seen and heard, under the title Kitab al-tlmdm bi -'ldm ft ma Sarat bhi Lahkam wa L-umiir al-mugdiyya fi wag ‘at al-Iskandariyya (The Book of Gleanings to become informed of what was entailed by the predica- ments and the accomplished facts regarding the event of Alexandria). His rich background, however, made him diverge a lot from his central theme and digress on any subject known in hs time, so that in the end his report of the sack of Alexandria tumed out to be imbedded in a richly dacu- ‘mented encyclopaedia of six volumes and about 2,641 pages in the Hyder- abad-edition.”* This made Atiya state that “an-Nuwayn's work must be regarded as a storehouse, perhaps a disorganized storehouse, of valuable treasure heaped around a central event which happened to be the sack of ‘Alexandria in 1365". In the course of his report, an-Nuwayrt informs us that his main reason for writing it was his love for the city of Alexandria and the disgust he had felt when he saw what the “Franks” had done to her." He provides us with a mass of data gathered from his own experi- cence or compiled from reports of other eyewitnesses."* Conceming the general character of his encyclopaedia, Atiya already noticed that “His approach appears to be that of a story teller with an emphasis on the dra- ‘matic and the legendary rather than a realistic record”; !° an-NuwayrT was also an almost fanatic religious Muslim, who indicated the will of God as the main cause of the sack of Alexandria."” His fanaticism and personal involvement might clearly bias and influence his writings. Nevertheless Atiya still describes an-NuwayrT as a foremost historical authority on the account of this crusade, not only owing to the paramount importance of his story in quantity, but also in quality.!* In an-Nuwaysi’s version, 70 Venetian tradeships (“tuggar al-Bana- diga”) appeared before Alexandria on Wednesday 20 Muharram 767, Fourteen were manned by Venetians and two by Genoese, ten came from Rhodes, five from France and Cypriots manned the remainder. When they did not enter the harbour, the inhabitants of Alexandria felt something was wrong and panic began to spread.” On the next day, 2 an-Nuwayr, Kitab al-imam 2 ‘Aliya, A Fourteenth Century Encyelopedis, p13 4% an-Nuwaytt, Kit a- lima, pp. 219-20, ' iva, A Fourteenth Century Eneyclopedis,p. 28 \ ‘ativa, A Fourteenth Century Encyelopedist . 17. an-Nuwayrl, Kidd alm, Up. 9. ' Atiya, A Fourteenth Century Eneyclopedist, p. 18. an-Nuwayrt, Kitab al Hmm, i, pp. 136-7; 230126 J. VAN STEENBERGEN, ‘Thursday 21 Muharram, Peter I and his fleet entered the western harbour of Alexandria, Bahr as-Silsila, but when they tried to disembark, they were driven away by the Muslim defenders and their arrows.” ‘On the moming of Friday 22 Muharram, many Muslims came out, trusting the defence of their city, and they spread on al-Gazaa, the long peninsula in front of the city. Even merchants selling food went around ‘among them. In their recklessness, some even insulted the “Franks”, apparently without getting any reaction. When some people protested to the governor's substitute, the amir Gangari, against this dangerous situation, their wamings were brushed aside.” Meanwhile spies had informed Peter of the opportunity this situation offered him, and a first ship was sent ahead. A skirmish in the water ensued between this fist ship and some Muslims, which was won by the former. This enabled the rmen to g0 ashore, followed by the rest of their crusader troops.” “Then an-Nuwayri informs us of the horror that ensued, the mostly ‘unarmed Muslims panicking and trying to return to the safe city-walls, while some perished heroically defending themselves and their partnets- insdistress with whatever they could lay their hands on, This complete chaos enabled the “Franks” to take the beach easily. The amir Gangari also had to flee back to the city, where he gathered the city treasure and sent all “Frankish” merchants who were in Alexandria to Damanhir. “The crusaders meanwhile attacked the walls, but were driven back by the Muslim defenders and their arows.°8 The crusaders then went to the easter harbour, where they found the walls undefended and no moat to hinder the approach. Consequently they were able to foree the gate at that, side of the wall — the Customs Gate, Bab ad-Diwan. Through this gate, they were then able to climb the walls and attack the defenders An- [Nuwaytt tells us thatthe reason for this easy capture of Alexandria was the fact that the Customs Gate had also been locked for the Alexandrians themselves, to protect the merchandise that was kept there. Consequently, the defenders had been unable to man this gate and its adjacent walls Later on — so an-Nuwayri remarks — the officer in charge of this gate ‘would be convicted for treason and for handing the city to Peter.” 2% an-Nuwaytt, Kit a-Tndm, 3 p- 112; 1 pp. 137-9. 21 an-Nuvagtt, Kitab al-findm, th, pp. 139-4 © ancNovays, Kieab al-limdm, 1 pp. 13-5. 2» mNuwayt, Kitab a-limdm, 1, pp. 41-2, 146, 2 ams Nuwayt, Kitab al-limam, 1, pp. 187-51 2% am-Nuwayt, Kit alin, pp. 155-6, 2 gn Nuviayl, Ki al Limam, tp. 157. 2 an-Nawayet, Aig alma, 1 . 158,‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1365) AND THE MAMLUK SOURCES 127 ‘Then many inhabitants of Alexandria were murdered or captured, while others fled to the countryside through one of the gates of the city of by using their turbans to climb down the walls.®* According to an- Nuwayri, the crusaders kept killing, violating, robbing and sacking from Friday-evening until Saturday, when they moved their abundant spoils 8 well as five thousand prisoners to their ships. An-Nuwayri states that when the crusaders spent the night on their ships, the city was also plun- dered by the Bedouins who entered it. The fleet finally sailed away on ‘Thursday 28 Muharram 767, eight days after it had arrived, when they saw Yalbuga I-Hassaki, the commander of the Egyptian army, arriving, in Alexandria with his relief force.” Badr ad-Din Abu Muhammad Mahima b. Ahmad b. Misa al-‘Aynt was bom on 21 July 1361 in “Ayntab, a city close 10 Aleppo. In 1399, he moved to Cairo where his knowledge of Turkish gave him access to the ruling circles. He occupied several high positions in the religious admin- istration of Cairo, where he died on 28 December 1451. His major his- torical work was his multi-volume ‘Igd al-Guman ft Tarth Ahl az-Zaman (A Pearl Necklace of the History of the People of the Time), a universal history of the world — mostly on Egypt and Syria — from Creation until al“Ayni’s own time.” In the course of his chronicle, al-’Ayni mentions the conquest of Alexandria by “the lord of Cyprus” (“sahib Qubrus”) and 70 warships, ‘carrying more than 30,000 “Franks”.*" Unfortunately, however, most of the attention in al'Ayni’s account — which is a second version of this event — goes to the Cairene scene and the reaction of the sultan and the commander of his army, Yalbuga LHagsaki.>? Nevertheless, al~Aynt informs us that these “Franks” arrived near Alexandria on Friday 23 Muharram 767 AH/10 October A.D. 1365. ‘They proceeded until right outside the city, where they started fight the people of Alexandria, who had come out to stop them. However the “Franks” also attacked the Muslims from an ambush, which caused the 2% an-Nuwaytt, Kitab al Jima, pp. 1624 ® an-Nuwayrt, Kitab al-Iomdm, pp. 166, 171-3, 178, 179, 269-70, %° W. Marga, “al‘Aynt”, in BE, 1, p. S14; Brockelmann, Geschichte, i, pp. 3-3: S pp. 50-1; F, Wisteneld, Die Geschichsschrelber der Araber, Burt Franklin Research and Source Work Ser., $0 (New York, 1964), 489; Lite, "Historiography pp. a7 Sak “Ayml, Tad al-Guman fl Tarth Ah! az-Zaman, xxw/l, MS Cairo, National Libgary, 1584 Tar, p. 138, % alAym, Tgd, XXIV, pp. 138.9.128 J. VAN STEENBERGEN death of about 4,000 Alexandrians and the “Frankish” victory. Then the “Franks” stayed in Alexandria for four days, sacking the town, killing its inhabitants and taking many captives. When they heard that a relief force was approaching from Cairo, they left the town and retumed home.** ‘An almost identical copy of this account is given by al-'Ayni’s histo iographical successor, Abu I-Mahisin Ibn Tagribirdi, He was bor in Cairo round about 1409 as the son of an important Mamldk amir. He received a traditional intellectual education, as well as a military training, and he was even granted a military fief. In this way, Tbn Tagribirdi also had his entry to the Mamluk court, and he became quite intimate with certain sultans. It was said that he started writing history after having heard a recitation of the works of al-‘Aynt in the presence of the sultan. One of Ibn Tagrtbirdi’s most important works is his an-Nugiim az- Zahira fi Muliak Misr wa I-Qahira (Resplendant Stars among the Kings of Misr and Cairo), a history of Egypt from the Arab conquest until his, ‘own time, arranged by the reigns of individual rulers. Ton Tagribirdi died fon 5 June 1470. AS indicated, his version of the sack of Alexandria seems to have bbeen copied almost completely from al-"Ayni's account, except for some details on the conquest itself. He explicitly reports that the “Franks” dis- ‘embarked on the beach of Alexandria (al-barr) on Friday 23 Muharram 767/10 October A.D. 1365, where they started fighting the Alexandri- ‘ans. No mention is made of an ambush. Ibn Tagribirdi simply states that the “Franks” took Alexandria by storm. Then he explicitly says that they left after four days when they were informed of the coming of the sultan himself.*> A third version of this event can be found in the annals of al-"Ayni's renowned contemporary Taqi ad-Din Ahmad b, “AIT al-Magrizi, He was bom in Cairo some four years after al-‘Ayni, in 1364. After a traditional ‘education, he first occupied several administrative and educational func- tions in Cairo and Damascus, before devoting himself completely to his- toriography. As Rosenthal and Marcais pointed out, there seems to have ‘been both a professional and a personal rivalry between al-Magrizi and 2 alaynt Tad, xxv, p13 % W. Popes, “Ai -Mahasn" in £71 p. 142; Bockelmann, Gesciche, wp, Su p. 39; Wistentel, De Geschichsscreter der Araber (ee. 30), 450, Lite, “Historiography”, p. 439-40 2 Abu Masini Tabi, an-Nui Zia ft Mulak Mir wa Ohi Toei At! Taran, (Caio [nd p. 29-30,‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1365) AND THE MAMLOK SOURCES 129) hhis contemporary historian al-‘Ayni. Al-Magrizt died in Cairo in Febru- ary 1442, leaving a great number of historical works of major impor- tance. One of his most important chronicles is his annalistic history of the Ayyubids and the Mamliiks, his Kitab as-Sulik li Ma'rifat Duoval al- ‘Mulik (The Book of the Path of Knowledge of Dynasties and Kings).>° In this chronicle al-Magrizi relates how Venetian fortified ships (ail) were spotted by the Alexandrian watchman (“an-ndzar”) on Wednesday morning, 21 Muharram 767. Eight of these ships (“tamaniya agribatin”) approached the harbour, followed by some 70 or 80 others ‘(mina L-agriba wa I-qaragit”), According to al-Maqrii, this fleet con- sisted of 24 Venetian and two Genoese ships, ten vessels from Rhodes and five French ships; the remainder came from Cyprus. Following this news, the gates of Alexandria were shut, its defence was prepared and ‘one military regiment (“t4'ifa”") was sent outside to guard the city.” ‘The next morning, the inhabitants of Alexandria came outside to con- front the enemy, but the “Franks” did not react during that day, nor dur- ing the following night.* However, that same night a group of them secretly disembarked with their horses and they set up an ambush, hid- ing in a graveyard outside the city (“kamangi fi tturab”).” On Friday morning, 23 Muharram 767/10 October 1365, some Be- douins and Alexandrians gathered at the lighthouse, where they noticed ‘one of the ships entering the western harbour of Alexandria, Bahr as-Sil- sila, Consequently, a fierce fight ensued in which some “Franks” were Killed and a group of Muslims was martyred (“ustushida”).® Other ‘Alexandrians then came out, some of them proceeding to the lighthouse, and others assisting their fellow-citizens to fight the infidels. At the same time, however, some youths and food sellers also left the ci seeking fun and amusement, taking no notice of the enemy. At that ‘moment, the group of “Franks” that had been hiding in an ambush raised their trumpets and attacked the Muslims from behind, while simultaneously arrows were shot at the Alexandrians from the other ships. In this way, the crusaders managed to take the beach, while the Muslims in panic fled back to the city, where the overcrowdedness at the gates killed many.*! Then the Franks brought their ships inside the har- % B, Rosenthal, “al-Maksta”, EP, vi pp. 177-8; Magis, “al“Aynt" (ee n. 30), Geschichte, pp. 38-41, S pp. 36-8; Lite, “Historiography Pp. 436-7. 2% al-Mage2t, Sak, n/, pp. 104, 105, 107 it, Sul aL Magez,130 J. VAN STEENBERGEN bour, where the walls seem to have been abandoned by their defenders (wa halat al-aswar mina I-huma”). With ladders, they climbed these walls, took the city and burned down the armoury.*? Meanwhile, the inhabitants tried to flee and got jammed at one of the gates, Bab ar- RaSid, which was bumed. Al-Magrii informs us that this jam killed an innumerable number of people ("ma 18 yaqa'u “alayhi hasrun”) The amir Gangari — at that moment in charge of the city — took the con. tents of the city's treasure together with 50 imprisoned European mer- ‘chants with him when he fled to Damanhiir in the Delta. And so the city \was left entirely to the crusaders. ‘The King of Cyprus then entered the city and he had it sacked, destroyed and burned. The crusaders were said to have treated the remaining population very harshly (“istalama bi s-sayf"), killing many, also Christians, and capturing @ great many of them, They continued doing this until the morning of Sunday, 25 Muharram/12 October, when they returned to their ships with their booty and 5,000 prisoners. When the commander of the Egyptian army, Yalbuga I-Hussaki, and his reliet force arrived in Alexandria on Thursday (“yawm al-hamis”), the cru saders sailed away with their booty and prisoners.** A clear echo of this account by al-Maqiizi can be found in the chronicle of the Mamlik historiographer Zayn ad-Din Abu I-Barakat Muhammad b. Ahmad Ibn Iyas al-Hanafi, who was bom on 9 June 1448 and who died in 1524, @ couple of years after the conquest of Egypt by the Ottomans. His writings were also mainly historical, and although his ‘most important chronicle Bada'i” az-Zuhiir ft Waga’i" ad-Duhir (Mar- vellous Blossoms among Events of the Times) concentrates especially ‘on the decline and fall of the Mamlak Empire, it yet also contains a short account of the sack of Alexandria,“ His summary of events is so brief, that he forgets to mention the events of Thursday and Friday and simply antedates the complete story Of the conquest of Alexandria to Wednesday 21/8, but then wrongly naming Safar/November as the month concerned, He only informs us that on that day the “Franks” came to Alexandria in 70 ships under the © al-Magrar, Sl, Wp. 106 -Magrzt, Sul, m/l, p. 106 al Magia, Suk J p. 106, © al Magia, Sua, n/t, pp. 106-7. WM. Brinner, “Ibn iyas", in EY, m, pp. $35-7; Brockelmann, Geschichte, 1 1295; S upp. 405-6; Wisteneld, Geschicistchreiber der Araber (ce n. 30), p. 31 Lite, “Historiography”, pp. 440-1‘THE ALEKANDRIAN CRUSADE (1368) AND THE MAMLUK SOURCES 131 command of the lord of Cyprus and that they took the city. The contin- uation of his story looks like a copied summary — almost word for ‘word — of al-Maggizi:? ‘After this presentation of the Mamlik sources on the sack of Alexandria, by Peter I of Lusignan and his allies in October 1365, we must undoubt- edly agree with Atiya that an-Nuwayri’s version is the most elaborate ‘one. For instance, it mentions numerous details of Muslim heroes and their fights and skirmishes with “Franks” and it lists all the major demo- litions and plunderings inside Alexandria In all 44 pages of an- Nuwayr’s encyclopaedia were dedicated entirely to the event, while al-‘Ayni and al-Maqrizi only gave two and four pages of information respectively.” But what is the actual value and the historiographical quality of this claborate contemporary version? And what is the value and quality of the two other later versions? A résumé of the most important differences and similarities might help to clarify this. For an accurate assessment of the results of this comparison the issues that are here considered for comparison are also looked at from an angle independent of Mamlik historiography: the stories of the attack and sack of Alexandria as they ccan be read in the chronicle La Prise d’Alexandrie ou Chronique di Roi Pierre ler de Lusignan by the French musician and historiographer Guil- Taume de Machaut (1300-77), and in the history of the Lusignan dynasty of Cyprus by Leontios Makhairas (ca. 1380-ca, 1450), ie. the Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus entitled “Chronicle” 5 Both al-Magrizi and an-Nuwayrl mention the appearance of 70 or 80 ‘Venetian ships on Wednesday. Both mention the fact that inhabitants of © hm Iya, Bad ax-Zuhar ft WagaY a-Duhir, U2, e8. M. Musa, Bibliotheca Islamica, 52 (Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 21-3 anNuwayi, Kit al-Simdn, pp. 136-79. “Ayn, 7d, XXIV, pp. 157-9 al-Magez, Suk 1/1, pp. 104-7. * Guillaume de Machaut, Prise d’Alexandrt, pp. 56-110; Lexikon des Mitelalters,¥ (Minchen and Zrch, 1989), pp. 1781-2. De Machaut is even sid to have been a partic- ipant in and therefore eyewitness of these events (Atiya, A Fourteenth Century Encyclo edit p- 7). * Leontios Makhairas, Chronicle; on the work and the autor, se the introduction, pp. 1-24; Lexikon des Miselaters, vi (Miinchen and Zitich, 1993), p58. We want ‘make the observation here that the stories both thse chroicls tell are, of course, not 10 be regarded as a standard of historical trth for our Mamldk sources inthe ight of the fl lowing comparison; rather they are used here jut like the Mamitk sources to help us reassessing the true value ofthe one source that is often treated as such a standard of his torical value forthe Alexandrian Crusade, an-Nuwayni's Kitab a-Iimdm. © al-Magezy, Sula, ul, p. 108; an-Nuwayr, Kitab al-limdm, np. 2305 “Tad, xx, p. 138, “Ayal,132 J.-VAN STEENBERGEN ‘Alexandria spread on the peninsula on Friday.® Another common element ‘was the ensuing skirmish between one crusader ship and some Muslims in the surf, which actually started the conquest of Alexandria. We find an echo of both these elements in al-’Ayni’s report, when he mentions the clash between the crusaders and the inhabitants of Alexandria who had come out to stop these crusaders. All three versions then equally mention how many Alexandrians were killed, ether during the fight or when flee- ing back to the city. There is also general agreement between these ver- sions on how the Franks violated, captured and killed many, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and how they plundered and destroyed Alexandria.” Finally, the sources agree on the fact that after the sack of the city, the cru- saders remained on their ships in the harbour for a couple of days until a relief force from Cairo approached or entered the city.* Clearly, all versions agree on the general line of events concerning the sack of Alexandria, Compared with the “westem” version of Guillaume de Machaut and Leontios Makhairas, this general line indeed proves to be very reliable.*” However, despite this general conformity, some major Uifferences are also very significant. Fist of all, the dating of the event in these Muslim records poses a problem. Though both an-Nuwayrt and al-Magrizi agree thatthe crusader ships appeared before the Alexandrian coast on a Wednesday and thatthe real conquest of the city followed two days later, on Friday, they differ on the dates they give. While an- Nuwayri clearly indicates this Wednesday as Wednesday 20 Muharram 767, al-Magrici informs us that this day was Wednesday 21 Muharram 767, a dating which can also be derived from al-‘Aynis statement that the date of the following crucial Friday was 23 Muharram 767. If we convert these dates to the Christian era 20 Muharram corresponds according to the Wistenfeld-Mahler-tables® with Tuesday 7 October, 2 al Magrat, Sul, m/l, p. 105; an-Nuwayst, Kitab a-Hmdr, 3 aL Ma Pp ‘Sul, ny, p. 108; ar-Nuwayt, Kitab ab Uni, p16. 2% aleAymt, Tad, xxv/, . 138, % al-Maqrizi, Sultk,m/i, pp. 105-6; an-Nuwayet, Kitab al-limdm, 1, pp. 146-7 al “Ayn, Tad, OV, p. 138. 2% al-Magrat, Suk, m/l, p. 105; an-Nawaye, Kitab al-lmm, Wp. 146; al-Ayni, “Tad, x00, p. 138, % ab-Magiz, lak, at, pp. 106-7; an-Nuwaye, Kitab alin, 1, pp. 162-4, 166, 17133, 178,256; al"Ayn, gd x7, p13. ® Guillaume de Macha, Prise d’Alexandrie, pp. 56-110; Leontios Makhaira, Chronicle, pp. 150-5. ® B. Spuler, Wastnfeld-Mahlr'sche Vergleichungs-Tabellen zur mustimischen und fvanischen Zeitrechnang mit Taeln zur Umrechnung Orient Christichen dren: Drie verbessrte und erweiterteAuflage der *Vergleichungs-Tabellen der mohanmedanischen lund christichen Zeitrechmung” (Wiesbaden, 1961), p. 17‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1365) AND THE MAMLOK SOURCES 133 while 21 Muharram indeed corresponds with Wednesday 8 October. ‘Then again comparing these data with the “western” versions of the event in the chronicles of Guillaume de Machaut and Leontios Makhai- ras, we can firmly state that, strangely enough, our eyewitness an- Nuwaytt was one day wrong. For Guillaume de Machaut informs us that de crusaders tried to disembark in the harbour of Alexandria “En un Jjuedi, ce m’est avis, Jour de la feste St. Denis” — dated by his editor De Mas Latrie as Thursday 9 October —*' and Makhairas also gives Thurs- day 9 October as the day of arrival of the Franks.® Consequently, the preceding Wednesday had to be 8 October or 21 Muharram, as attested by al-Magrizi and indicated by al-’Ayni. Clearly, our eyewitness an- [Nuwayri was wrong here. ‘Though this minor mistake should not question the value of the con- tent of an-Nuwayri’s report, believe that this false dating reveals that al-Magrizi and al-'Ayni must have used other sources than the report of an-NuwayiT regarding the sack of Alexandria. This fact makes al- ‘Magriai’s version of the events in particular at least as important as an- Nuwayr’s. Nevertheless, al-Magrizi also seems partially to have used an-NuwaytT or a common source, for although he follows his own cor- rect dating during his entire record of the sack, he surprisingly makes the same mistake as an-Nuwayri in the end when he informs his reader of the date on which the crusaders sailed away from Alexandria, Al- Magrizi — as an-Nuwayri — gives Thursday 28 Muharram as this date, though 28 Muharram in fact corresponds with Wednesday 15 October: ‘Other issues that attest to the equally valuable character of al-Maqrizt's account, are the following: Both authors differ considerably regarding the events of the second day, Thursday, after the arrival of the Franks in Alexandria, Al-Magrizi ‘makes short work of this day, informing us that the Alexandrians came outside the walls to confront the crusaders, but these refused to react all day long and they even seemed to have remained quiet during the fol- lowing night An-Nuwayri al-Iskandardnt on the contrary states that Peter and his crusader-fleet entered the westem harbour of Alexandria, Bab as-Silsila, on that day and that they even disembarked. But the ‘Alexandrian defence from the walls and its clouds of arrows prevented them from approaching and eventually they were driven back to their © Guillaume de Machaut, Prise d’Alexandri,p. 67. © Leontios Makhairas, Chronicle, p. 150 (Greek), p- 151 (English). Sul, /, p. 105134 J..VAN STEENBERGEN ships. Guillaume de Machaut, however, gives us a story that is very similar to that of al-Maqrizi‘ Leontios Makhairas’ story, finally, remains somewhat blurred with regard to the days on which the different events took place, because of the relative briefness ofits account (actu ally only three paragraphs). Nevertheless he also mentions that “then the Saracens came down to the shore, nigh ten thousand of them, horsemen and foot soldiers, to defend the harbour”. Consequently, itis again al-Magrizi’s account that looks the soundest and most acceptable in this respect. Why did an-Nuwayst write down a story that looks quite the opposite from reality. We suggest that his afore-mentioned general preference for the legendary and the dramatie™ and perhaps also his pride as a devoted Muslim and Alexandrian played tricks on him, Another matter which similarly questions an-Nuwayr’s reliability, concems the tactics the crusaders used to surprise and overpower the Alexandrians when they started their fatal attack on the city on Friday Al-Magfizi records clearly that a group of “Franks” had already secretly disembarked with their horses during the preceding night and that they were hiding in one of the graveyards, secretly awaiting the attack of their allies to surprise the defenders from this ambush (“kamand fi turab” (On Friday then, the “Franks” started very tactically by sending one ship ahead, enticing the Alexandrians to come outside, During the following skirmish, when many Alexandrian actually did come outside to help their colleagues or to proceed without care tothe lighthouse, the ambush opened up and the “Franks” launched their real attack. The hiding knights raised their trumpets and attacked the Alexandrians in the back, ‘hile arrows were shot from the approaching flet. Panic spread among the defenceless Alexandrians, who tried to flee back to the walls. This, chaos enabled the Franks to take the beach and attack the city-gates.® This ambush-story is summarized in al-’Ayni’s version and an-Nu- an-Nuwayi, Kiea alia, 3p. 11251, pp. 137-9, © “Or le gar cils qui fist la nue! Qu’einsos queussent but ne mengié, fare ti anemy ogi, devant le igs por, itl route, qu'il cotvoien la terre toute» Tant en ‘of grant quantté qui empeschierent le descend de ses vaissiaus et tre prente™ (Gui Jaume de Machaut, Prise d’Alexandri,p. 67) % Leontios Makhaias, Chronicle, p. 151; suprisingly, however, he goes on by sty ing “and they fled”. This seems, however, to poit at their general defeat rather than 8 specific event on this day, as no mention is made ofthat and the Franks ae sl up. posed to be on ther ships. © Atiya, A Fourteenth Century Encyclopedia, p. 17 6 aleMagray, Sua, 1, pp. 105-6 © aAym, Tad, xxv/l p. 138,‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1365) AND THE MAMLOK SOURCES 135 \wayt's report makes no mention of this ambush at all. According to the latter, it were spies that had informed Peter of the defenceless position of| many Alexandrians outside the city, enabling him to overpower them ceasily. An-NuwaytT consequently puts the loss of the city down to the incapability of the substitute-govemor and his advisors, and also to the brutality of the infidel King Peter, who attacked and butchered harmless citizens.” When again comparing these two versions with the aecount of Guillaume de Machaut, we see that the latter's coincides most with al- ‘Magriai’s report: Guillaume informs us that while Peter and his eru- saders fought the Muslims heroically in the westem harbour, the Hospi- tallers had secretly disembarked in the easter harbour. From there they’ autacked the Alexandrians in the back, which created great panic and ‘caused their flight back to the city."" Makhairas refers to these tactics only in passing by saying that the Alexandrians, who had been very con- fident of theit superiority at first, “Were seized with great teror, and many Saracens fled” when they suddenly saw that horses had been landed too.” ‘Again we see how an-Nuwayri seems to have given his own version of realty, more befitting his own personal motives. ‘More examples of such dissimilarities between an-Nuwayri and the other chronicles exist. They all point in the same direction as the before- ‘mentioned issues. Though an-Nuwayr"’s encyclopaedia provides us with ‘an unparalleled amount of data and details, these should not be taken for granted simply because an-Nuwayrl was an eyewitness himself and because he used the testimonies of other eyewitnesses, His version of the sack of Alexandria should be treated with a lot of historical criticism, keeping in mind that he did not so much — as Atiya stated — “stands out as a foremost historical authority ... [on] the Cypriot attack on and brief occupation of Alexandria in 1365," but on the contrary that his, blind faith and “his approach ... of a story teller with an emphasis on the dramatic and the legendary”” certainly and clearly also extended to his 2% an-Nowaye, Kita al-limam, 1, pp. 139-47. 7 avoit un port & veneste, devant la eité d’Alixandre, o Diews fist venir et descend de Rodes le bon amir, et les frees de VOpitl, is abillitent leurs chevaus, et issrent de leurs vaissaus, sans avoir nul empechements Puis se melrent en bute; .. EL quan li Sarazinveient les nostes qui ls eloren, en Ieutetoetent en fie...” (Guillaume de Machaut, La Prise d‘Alesandrie, pp. 68-77). * Leontios Makhuiras, Chronicle, pp. 151, 153 ® ‘Aliya, A Fourteenth Century Eneyclopeiis,p. 18 % siiya, A Fourteenth Century Encyclopedit, p17136 J. VAN STEENBERGEN account of the central theme of his encyclopaedia, the sack of Alexan- dria. His report should certainly always be used in combination with the versions of his colleague-historians al-Magrizi and to a lesser extent al- “Ayni, who seem to have based their versions of this event for the ‘greater part on sources that were independent of an-Nuwayri’s account and which are still unknown to us today. Moreover, both al-Magrizi and al-'Aynt seem to have treated these data with more regard for historical reality than did an-Nuwayrl ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE FoorworEs ‘Atya, A Fourteenth Century Eneyclopedist AS. Atiya, A Fourteenth Century Encyclopedist from Alexan- dria: A Critical and Analyical Study of al-Nuvairy al-tskan- dardni’s “Kitab al-timam’, Research Monographs, 7 (Salt Lake Givy, 1979. ‘gd al-Ayni, Tad al-Gundn ft Tarth AM az-Zaman, xx0s/1, MS (Cairo, National Library, 1584 Tarih Brockelmann, Geschichte €-Brockelmana, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, 2 vols and 3 supplement vols (Leiden, 1943-49; 1937-42). Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus Peter W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusaders, 1191-1374 Cambridge, 1981). Babury, “Crusading Polo P.W. Babury, “The Crusadng Policy of King Peter 1 of Cyprus, 1359-1369, in The Eastern Mediterranean Lands in the Period of the Crusades, ed. PM. Holt (Warminster, 1977) Guillaume de Machaut, Prise d’Alexandrie Guillaume de Machaut, La Prise d'Alexandrie ow Chronique du roi Pierre ler de Lusignan, ed. MLL. de Mas Latte, Publications de la Socité de Orient Latin, Série Historique, T (Geneve, 1887). Leontios Makhuiras, Chronicle Leontios Makhairas, Recital concerning the Sweet Land of Cyprus Entiled “Chronicle”, ed. and transl. RM. Dawkins, 2 vols (Oxford, 1932), Litle, “Historiography” Donald P, Little, “Historiography of the Ayytbid and Mamlok epochs”, in The Cambridge Hisiory of Egy, Islamic Egy (40-1517, ed, Can F.Peuy (Cambridge, 1998), a-Mage, Sula al-Magia, Kitab as-Sulik fi Ma‘ifat Duwal al-Mulik, m1, ed. SA. ASU (Caio, 1970)‘THE ALEXANDRIAN CRUSADE (1368) AND THE MAMLOK SOURCES 137 an-Nuwaysi, Kitab al-Tmam ‘an-Nuwayrt al-skandardnt, Kitab al-limam bi I'am fina garat bihi Lahkam wa lumir al-magdiyya ft wag'at al-Iskandariyya, ed. E. Combé and A.S. Atiya (Hyderabad, 1968).